Who allegedly leaked Horner investigation emails and whatsap
Discussion
Durzel said:
What's the answer then? What would you define as independent? Someone has to pay for the time of the people involved, so who would do that when anyone with a vested interest is on one side or the other?
If they'd come down the other way, would you have deemed it independent then?
Seems like there's no possible way to do any review, when an "unsatisfactory" outcome will lead people to decide that they're marking their own homework, as seems to be the case here.
Maybe be honest, then, and describe it as an 'internal' review, rather than 'independent' or 'impartial'?If they'd come down the other way, would you have deemed it independent then?
Seems like there's no possible way to do any review, when an "unsatisfactory" outcome will lead people to decide that they're marking their own homework, as seems to be the case here.
Edited by Durzel on Wednesday 12th March 11:04
moorx said:
Durzel said:
What's the answer then? What would you define as independent? Someone has to pay for the time of the people involved, so who would do that when anyone with a vested interest is on one side or the other?
If they'd come down the other way, would you have deemed it independent then?
Seems like there's no possible way to do any review, when an "unsatisfactory" outcome will lead people to decide that they're marking their own homework, as seems to be the case here.
Maybe be honest, then, and describe it as an 'internal' review, rather than 'independent' or 'impartial'?If they'd come down the other way, would you have deemed it independent then?
Seems like there's no possible way to do any review, when an "unsatisfactory" outcome will lead people to decide that they're marking their own homework, as seems to be the case here.
Edited by Durzel on Wednesday 12th March 11:04
Someone who disagrees with the findings casting doubt on the independence is an impossible argument to disprove, because it is at its heart based on biases and speculation.
I sense those who feel it wasn't independent wouldn't be complaining if they'd found him culpable. They'd probably labour the point it was independent then, if anyone came at it from the other end (i.e. supportive of Horner, questioning the findings). Because they came down in his favour it's suddenly "welllll how independent were they though, really?"
Durzel said:
Who is to say it wasn't independent though? That's my point.
Someone who disagrees with the findings casting doubt on the independence is an impossible argument to disprove, because it is at its heart based on biases and speculation.
I sense those who feel it wasn't independent wouldn't be complaining if they'd found him culpable. They'd probably labour the point it was independent then, if anyone came at it from the other end (i.e. supportive of Horner, questioning the findings). Because they came down in his favour it's suddenly "welllll how independent were they though, really?"
there already was/is an independent option ...it's called an ETSomeone who disagrees with the findings casting doubt on the independence is an impossible argument to disprove, because it is at its heart based on biases and speculation.
I sense those who feel it wasn't independent wouldn't be complaining if they'd found him culpable. They'd probably labour the point it was independent then, if anyone came at it from the other end (i.e. supportive of Horner, questioning the findings). Because they came down in his favour it's suddenly "welllll how independent were they though, really?"
it's RB/ Horner that put that extra QC hurdle in, not the PA
anonymous_user said:
Durzel said:
Who is to say it wasn't independent though? That's my point.
Someone who disagrees with the findings casting doubt on the independence is an impossible argument to disprove, because it is at its heart based on biases and speculation.
I sense those who feel it wasn't independent wouldn't be complaining if they'd found him culpable. They'd probably labour the point it was independent then, if anyone came at it from the other end (i.e. supportive of Horner, questioning the findings). Because they came down in his favour it's suddenly "welllll how independent were they though, really?"
there already was/is an independent option ...it's called an ETSomeone who disagrees with the findings casting doubt on the independence is an impossible argument to disprove, because it is at its heart based on biases and speculation.
I sense those who feel it wasn't independent wouldn't be complaining if they'd found him culpable. They'd probably labour the point it was independent then, if anyone came at it from the other end (i.e. supportive of Horner, questioning the findings). Because they came down in his favour it's suddenly "welllll how independent were they though, really?"
it's RB/ Horner that put that extra QC hurdle in, not the PA
MissChief said:
Apparently Horner was as good as out the door, with Press releases already typed up....
..which doesn't at all imply that it was a summary coup to deal with a road-block to a surreptitious plan. No eager jumping of the gun there at all...MissChief said:
...but Horner activated a clause that he'd had inserted into his contract that he was entitled to an external review or investigation.
...and why not when you are working in a high stakes environment when not everyone is a good faith player acting in the interests of the team (which you cannot accuse Horner of with regards to Red Bull Racing, seeing as it was his life's work and he was actively negotiating to prevent it being broken up or sold off to the highest bidder). If nothing else it proves what a canny operator he is.Even the best F1 team managers (heck, some of the founders of some of the biggest brands in the world) have found themselves being ousted from their own project because of some small detail or act of faith and trust that was leveraged against them. Ron Dennis, Ross Brawn.....
MissChief said:
anonymous_user said:
Durzel said:
Who is to say it wasn't independent though? That's my point.
Someone who disagrees with the findings casting doubt on the independence is an impossible argument to disprove, because it is at its heart based on biases and speculation.
I sense those who feel it wasn't independent wouldn't be complaining if they'd found him culpable. They'd probably labour the point it was independent then, if anyone came at it from the other end (i.e. supportive of Horner, questioning the findings). Because they came down in his favour it's suddenly "welllll how independent were they though, really?"
there already was/is an independent option ...it's called an ETSomeone who disagrees with the findings casting doubt on the independence is an impossible argument to disprove, because it is at its heart based on biases and speculation.
I sense those who feel it wasn't independent wouldn't be complaining if they'd found him culpable. They'd probably labour the point it was independent then, if anyone came at it from the other end (i.e. supportive of Horner, questioning the findings). Because they came down in his favour it's suddenly "welllll how independent were they though, really?"
it's RB/ Horner that put that extra QC hurdle in, not the PA
All I'm seeing is "apparentlys" and "my understanding is XYZ" - i.e. no actual proof of anything.
Sadly (?) for the general public I suspect the full and undisputed truth will never be known. All we've seen so far is unsubstantiated material with an agenda behind it, with people predisposed to disliking Horner choosing their own truth based on it.
I do wonder if "they" had been a bit more surgical about their attacks on him then perhaps they would have had more success, though I still think it would have been a Herculean task to oust him given what he has delivered for RBR. As it is - leaking selective WhatsApp to the grid is about as grubby as the subject matter itself, and imo didn't help their cause - particularly since as it was unsubstantiated the media couldn't report on it effectively.
They tried, they failed. I think that a team principal who has survived in their job in F1 for 20 years is going to need some real firepower to remove. Horner hasn't lasted as long as he has running RBR by being timid or weak.
My tinfoil theory is it was Newey.
The PA in question wasn’t just Horner’s but his as well. She confides in him, he encourages her to report it because due process is the right thing to do, it fails and in a fit of anger, mailed the evidence bundle out.
I also think this has been rumbling on longer than we think and Newey has not been involved in the design or development of an RB F1 car for some time. That would explain the complete lack of understanding on how to develop the 2024 car, Newey sketched the initial design/ethos behind it, found out about this PA situation and downed tools.
The road car project was the carrot to keep him within Redbull Technology with the hope he would fully return when Horner was out. When it became clear that wasn’t going to happen, he quit.
The PA in question wasn’t just Horner’s but his as well. She confides in him, he encourages her to report it because due process is the right thing to do, it fails and in a fit of anger, mailed the evidence bundle out.
I also think this has been rumbling on longer than we think and Newey has not been involved in the design or development of an RB F1 car for some time. That would explain the complete lack of understanding on how to develop the 2024 car, Newey sketched the initial design/ethos behind it, found out about this PA situation and downed tools.
The road car project was the carrot to keep him within Redbull Technology with the hope he would fully return when Horner was out. When it became clear that wasn’t going to happen, he quit.
Evercross said:
Exactly this. Horner's connection with Red Bull and motor racing significantly predates the F1 years. He first garnered their sponsorship for his own Arden team, and his overwhelming success in lower formulas meant he earned his place at the head of Red Bull Racing's F1 effort when they bought the Stewart-Ford/Jaguar entry. Dieter knew that and Yoovidhya knows that. He might be (to use some Scottish parlance) a "bawbag" but he is by far and away the best person at his job within his organisation and one of the elite group of people (the number of which you can count on one hand) who have proven they can win repeatedly at F1, dominate the sport, fall back and then return to dominate again.
Have you any evidence about the Porsche deal, rather than say Horner spinning off the company himself? Pretty much all your assumptions seem to be based around this being true, but I don't think there is any evidence to back it up?Edited by Evercross on Wednesday 12th March 14:04
NRS said:
Have you any evidence about the Porsche deal, rather than say Horner spinning off the company himself? Pretty much all your assumptions seem to be based around this being true, but I don't think there is any evidence to back it up?
Circumstantial only, but the timing of events permits some in-retrospect interpretation of them....How Oracle Red Bull Racing Walked Away From Porsche
It was always Horner making the public noises about how Red Bull wanted to maintain "independence" as it was rumoured that Porsche wanted a 50% stake in the team and not just an engine partnership.
When Oliver Mintzlaff was promoted within Red Bull staff just 16 days after Dietrich Mateschitz passed, specifically to head-up RB sports and media, it was perceived by those in the know that he was put there specifically to divest the parent company of the F1 team as Mark Mateschitz had no interest in the sport. There are plenty of articles from around this time stating that Mintzlaff clashed with Horner (and to a lesser extent Marko) over the future of Red Bull Racing, with Mintzlaff displeased that the Porsche deal was not pursued.
It is a bit of stretch to suggest that Horner was the villain of the piece in the above. By pure numbers, what we had was a collective with 49% of the shareholding of the parent company trying to sell off by stealth (through eventual loss of control) the racing division. Under those circumstance Horner would have no say in whether he was kept on at Red Bull Racing (or whatever Porsche would have eventually renamed it as). Of course he is then going to fight for his future, and the idea that he was motivated by notions of taking over himself is IMO just interference.
Being the consummate tactician and businessman that he is yes he may have, as a reaction to a clear attempt by Mintzlaff to sell-off RBR from underneath him, looked into ways of taking it over himself in order to get the vultures off his back, which is where snidey accusations that this was his intention all along may have originated, but TBH if he was really motivated to spin the team off separately he would have probably done it by now.
Bottom line is this - Horner blocked the sell off of the team once, so whoever wanted their payday resorted to the low-brow salacious crap to summarily get him removed (and dropped lots of hints to the media that it was a dead-cert he would be gone following the revelations). Whoever the person or persons were, they completely underestimated Horner.
Edited by Evercross on Tuesday 15th April 14:30
HocusPocus said:
It's a sticky situation. Best give it a wide swerve.
Due process will happen first, open justice! However Horny is unlikely to scale the dizzy heights of Max Spanker Mosley's notoriety.
Mosley did it properly, he pre-dated fifty shades of grey, a true visionary - shame about the choice of uniforms mind...Due process will happen first, open justice! However Horny is unlikely to scale the dizzy heights of Max Spanker Mosley's notoriety.
Horny's w
k on a plane isn't really in the same league 
Bo_apex said:
HocusPocus said:
It's a sticky situation. Best give it a wide swerve.
Due process will happen first, open justice! However Horny is unlikely to scale the dizzy heights of Max Spanker Mosley's notoriety.
Geri might've been on the blower, but Mosley was the guv'norDue process will happen first, open justice! However Horny is unlikely to scale the dizzy heights of Max Spanker Mosley's notoriety.
Basil Brush said:
Bo_apex said:
HocusPocus said:
It's a sticky situation. Best give it a wide swerve.
Due process will happen first, open justice! However Horny is unlikely to scale the dizzy heights of Max Spanker Mosley's notoriety.
Geri might've been on the blower, but Mosley was the guv'norDue process will happen first, open justice! However Horny is unlikely to scale the dizzy heights of Max Spanker Mosley's notoriety.
"Mr Thurlbeck also relied upon the fact that the Claimant was "shaved". Concentration camp inmates were also shaved. Yet, as Mr Price pointed out, they had their heads shaved. The Claimant, for reasons best known to himself, enjoyed having his bottom shaved – apparently for its own sake rather than because of any supposed Nazi connotation. He explained to me that while this service was being performed he was (no doubt unwisely) "shaking with laughter". I naturally could not check from the DVD, as it was not his face that was on display."
Now beat that Horney!
HocusPocus said:
As you are on about heads....the classic wise words of Mr Justice Eady
"Mr Thurlbeck also relied upon the fact that the Claimant was "shaved". Concentration camp inmates were also shaved. Yet, as Mr Price pointed out, they had their heads shaved. The Claimant, for reasons best known to himself, enjoyed having his bottom shaved – apparently for its own sake rather than because of any supposed Nazi connotation. He explained to me that while this service was being performed he was (no doubt unwisely) "shaking with laughter". I naturally could not check from the DVD, as it was not his face that was on display."
Now beat that Horney!
Wasn't Eady the most criticised judge? The most judgement turned over? He's not been seen around much since the Mosley judgement. It wrote a new law."Mr Thurlbeck also relied upon the fact that the Claimant was "shaved". Concentration camp inmates were also shaved. Yet, as Mr Price pointed out, they had their heads shaved. The Claimant, for reasons best known to himself, enjoyed having his bottom shaved – apparently for its own sake rather than because of any supposed Nazi connotation. He explained to me that while this service was being performed he was (no doubt unwisely) "shaking with laughter". I naturally could not check from the DVD, as it was not his face that was on display."
Now beat that Horney!
Derek Smith said:
Wasn't Eady the most criticised judge? The most judgement turned over? He's not been seen around much since the Mosley judgement. It wrote a new law.
All judges have elite brains, but even in that stratosphere some are more tourist than contender. 
The point though is Horney is a mere tourist competitor to Spanker the contender at the slimeball Olympics.
HocusPocus said:
Derek Smith said:
Wasn't Eady the most criticised judge? The most judgement turned over? He's not been seen around much since the Mosley judgement. It wrote a new law.
All judges have elite brains, but even in that stratosphere some are more tourist than contender. The point though is Horney is a mere tourist competitor to Spanker the contender at the slimeball Olympics.
Yes Horny Spice is a veritable lightweight compared to the ex FIA boss
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff